Biblical Hebrew Forum

["Karl Randolph" <kwrandolph AT email.com>]

----- Original Message -----
From: "Harold R. Holmyard III" <hholmyard AT ont.com>
> 
> Dear Karl,
> 
> > The only "evidence" you have provided are your "experts" and
> > "traditions". They are not data. They are interpretations of
> > data that can be wrong. Even _all_ of them. Unanimity in
> > error is still error.
> >
> > Experts and traditions are useful and often provide insights
> > that help with understanding, but when I find that the
> > experts and traditions contradict methodology, I tend to go
> > with methodology.
> >
> > The search for truth is not a democratic process based on
> > majority vote.
> 
> HH: Yada yada. Here is what I gave you, which you have ignored so far:
> 
> >  > HH: You have not demonstrated that X+)T  ever means "error" anywhere
> >>  else. It may never have had that meaning in ancient Hebrew. One
> >>  lexicon lists five nouns related to the verb X+). They may have
> >  > differed from one another in meaning.
> >>
> > Judges 20:16 shows the root meaning of to err: don't tell
> > me that those slingers were morally not sinning.
> 
> HH: That's the verb. I asked about the noun. That was my point. One
> meaning of the verb is not necessarily transferable to this noun.
> Does the noun show this meaning elsewhere. The lexicons do not give
> "error" as a meaning of the noun X+)T. The word occurs 298 times, and
> the lexicons never give "error" as its meaning.
> 
Harold, unless you are extremely dense, you know that one 
of the features of Biblical Hebrew language is that most 
expressed terms are derived from roots, at least 
morphologically. Secondly, unless there is evidence to 
the contrary, derivitive lexemes also carry root meanings 
expressed as verbs, nouns, etc. This is not the root 
fallacy. The root fallacy is to claim that the root 
meanings trump all other indications.

The root meaning of X+) is "to err" and, as an exception 
to another rule that lexemes don't have two distinct 
meanings, "to make amends for error", the contexts tell 
us which meaning to use. There is no indication that the 
noun X+)T is an exception to the rule in the above 
paragraph. Hence, the noun's meaning parallels the verb's 
meaning. While most uses of words derived from X+) are 
used in a theological context, that is not true of all.

> >  > >  > > "Justice exults a nation,
> >  > >>  but undeserved good favor of peoples errs."
> >
> >  > HH: Even the general use makes no sense. Kindness is a good thing to
> >>  show people.
> >>
> > Not in the context, where kindness is done at the expense
> > of justice. If a murderer is set free instead of executed,
> > that is undeserved kindness that is injust. Genesis 9:6.
> 
> HH: But the word means kindness, goodness. You can't insert the idea
> "undeserved" and then claim that that is a main idea in this verse.
> 
You are wrong in your definitions.

> >  > HH: You don't seem to realize that if you come up with an
> >>  interpretation of Scripture that no one has had in two thousand or
> >>  more years of study on the topic, it is probably incorrect.
> >
> > Just because it is old, that doesn't make it correct. Just
> > because it is new, does not make it better. Each has to
> > stand on its own two feet.
> 
> HH: You have neither refuted the old or proved the new.
> 
Don't need to. All I need to do is to show that the old is 
not necessary, as the non-standard definition is based on 
the belief that it is necessary to fit the context. That I 
have done.

> >  > HH: I don't see that you have tried to prove this assertion anywhere.
> >>  I don't see how it would work in Prov. 25:10.
> >>
> > To put that verse into modern English, if you have an
> > argument with someone else, argue with him, and don't
> > reveal other consultations, lest the one who hears it
> > treats you well undeservably and your evil report will
> > not return. As I understand these verses, if one gets
> > people to treat him well based on falsehood (more likely,
> > one sided portrayal), when they find out that they have
> > been snookered into supporting him (taking sides in his
> > argument), they will make sure that he has a bad
> > reputation at least in their own hearts. Like all
> > proverbs, I am reading between the lines, looking at
> > the actions, to try to make sense of what is said.
> >
> > This is the same sort of reading between the lines to
> > make sense of "a stitch in time saves nine" or "pretty
> > is as pretty does".
> 
> HH: The proverb does not say what you're claiming it does. It would
> need more words to say all that. As it stands, it can't say that:
> 
> HCSB Prov 25:9-10: make your case with your opponent without
> revealing another's secret; otherwise the one who hears will disgrace
> you, and you'll never live it down.
> 
> HH: You want for verse 10: "otherwise the one who hears will treat
> you well undeservedly, and you will never live it down.
> 
> HH: That makes no sense. You would need more explanatory words to get
> your idea. It is important to know that the verb XSD means to be
> kind, as many lexicons and many scholars have established. The noun
> is similar. The idea that the word XSD explicitly includes the idea
> "undeserved" or "undeservedly" is incorrect. Look at this verse for
> example:
>
> Gen. 40:14 But when all goes well with you, remember me and show me
> kindness; mention me to Pharaoh and get me out of this prison.
> 
> HH: Joseph is asking for kindness specifically because the man owes
> it to him, not because it is undeserved.
> 
The man owed Joseph nothing. Joseph merely did his job as a 
trusty in prison, to try to quiet restless inmates to make 
it easier for the jailor. Joseph was asking for a favor.

> HH: And you never dealt with one main objection I had to your
> handling of Lev 20:17. Since you did not like the NIV translation, I
> will use the HCSB:
> 
> HCSB LEV 20:17 If a man marries his sister, whether his father's
> daughter or his mother's daughter, and they have sexual relations, it
> is a disgrace. They must be publicly cut off from their people. He
> has had sexual intercourse with his sister; he will bear his
> punishment
> 
> HH: The punishment is not the XSD here. It is the sexual relations
> that are the XSD, and they are not "undeserved good favor."
> 
So the HCSB (whoever that is) also parses the sentence 
wrongly? What sort of evidence is that? Look also at 
preceding verses, starting with verse 10, for context.

>                                       Yours,
>                                       Harold Holmyard

Are you satisfied?

Karl W. Randolph.

-- 
___________________________________________________________
Sign-up for Ads Free at Mail.com
http://promo.mail.com/adsfreejump.htm